THE SCALES OF JUSTICE: WEIGHING ADVOCATES’ ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE BALANCE OF

CONSUMER LAW

(Project towards the fulfilment of mid-term assessment in the subject of Professional Ethics,
Semester IX)

SUBMITTED TO:

PROF. ANJALI THANVI

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

FACULTY OF LAW

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

SUBMITTED BY:

SIMRAN SHARMA (1948) VIDHI

KANODIA (1958)

SEMESTER IX
SEMESTER IX

B.A. LL.B. (TRADE LAW HONS.) B.A. LL.B. (B USINESS

LAW HONS.)

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

SUMMER SESSION
(JULY, 2O24 – NOVEMBER, 2O24)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Aims and Objectives..................................................................................................................3

Introduction................................................................................................................................5

Understanding Professional Negligence....................................................................................7

Liability of Legal Practitioner in India.....................................................................................10

Case Law Developments......................................................................................................10

The English Position............................................................................................................11

Amplitude of Liability of Legal Practitioner Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.............13

Way Forward and Conclusion..................................................................................................15

Bibliography.............................................................................................................................17
 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The primary aim of this comprehensive research project is to undertake a critical examination
of the legal position and liabilities of advocates in cases of professional negligence, with a
specific focus on the Indian and English jurisdictions. Additionally, the study seeks to
delineate the amplitude of liability that legal practitioners may face under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.

Firstly, the researchers will delve into the Indian legal framework to ascertain the prevailing
position on the liability of advocates in instances of negligence. This will involve an in-depth
analysis of the relevant judicial precedents, statutory provisions, and the evolving principles
of tort law as applied to the legal profession in the Indian context. By scrutinising the existing
legal landscape, the study aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the standards of care,
the grounds for establishing negligence, and the potential avenues for recourse available to
aggrieved clients.

Secondly, the research will turn its attention to the English jurisdiction, examining the legal
position on the liability of advocates in cases of professional negligence. Drawing upon the
rich body of jurisprudence developed in the United Kingdom, the researchers will engage in a
comparative analysis to identify the similarities and divergences between the Indian and
English approaches. This cross-jurisdictional examination will offer valuable insights into the
diverse legal frameworks governing the accountability of legal practitioners and the potential
for cross-pollination of ideas and best practices.

Thirdly, the study will delve into the amplitude of liability that legal practitioners may face
under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Given the growing importance of
this legislation in safeguarding the interests of consumers, including clients of legal services,
the researchers will meticulously analyse the applicability of the Act to the legal profession,
the scope of the definition of “service,” and the potential implications for advocates in terms
of pecuniary liability and other forms of redress available to aggrieved clients.

The research methodology employed in this project will be the doctrinal approach, which
involves a comprehensive review and analysis of primary sources, such as statutes, case law,
and relevant regulations, as well as secondary sources, including academic literature,
scholarly articles, and online resources. This rigorous, text-based analysis will enable the

4|Page
researchers to develop a thorough understanding of the legal principles, policy
considerations, and emerging trends that shape the liability of advocates in cases of
professional negligence.

The sources of data for this study will encompass both primary and secondary materials. The
primary sources will include the Indian Advocates Act, 1961, the Consumer Protection Act,
1986, and other relevant legislation, along with the seminal judicial decisions that have
contributed to the development of the law in this domain. The secondary sources will
comprise authoritative textbooks, academic journals, law reports, and online databases that
provide comprehensive coverage of the subject matter.

It is important to acknowledge the limitations inherent in this research project. Firstly, the
study will be constrained by territorial limitations, as it primarily focuses on the Indian and
English legal systems, without delving into the nuances of other jurisdictions. Secondly, the
researchers may face monetary limitations in terms of accessing certain specialised databases
or publications that require substantial financial resources. Lastly, the project will be subject
to time limitations, which may prevent an exhaustive exploration of all aspects of the topic.

Despite these limitations, the researchers are confident that the findings of this study will
contribute significantly to the existing body of knowledge on the liability of advocates in
cases of professional negligence. By providing a comparative analysis of the Indian and
English legal positions, as well as examining the implications of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986, the study aims to inform policymakers, legal professionals, and the general public
about the evolving standards of accountability within the legal fraternity. The insights
garnered from this research may also serve as a foundation for further scholarly exploration
and the development of more robust regulatory frameworks to safeguard the interests of
clients and uphold the integrity of the legal profession.

5|Page
 INTRODUCTION
Advocates, as members of a noble and esteemed profession, hold a unique position in society.
Their role goes beyond simply providing legal services; they are entrusted with the
responsibility of upholding the integrity of the legal system and safeguarding the rights and
interests of their clients.1 However, instances of professional negligence or misconduct by
advocates have become a growing concern, raising questions about the accountability and
disciplinary mechanisms within the legal profession.

The legal profession, by its very nature, is distinct from other professions or trades.
Advocates are not merely service providers; they exercise their own professional judgment in
the best interests of their clients.2 This discretionary authority, coupled with the fiduciary
relationship between an advocate and their client, creates a heightened standard of care and
ethical conduct expected from members of the legal fraternity. 3 Historically, the regulation of
the legal profession in India has been primarily governed by the Advocates Act, 1961, which
gives power to the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils to maintain discipline and
address instances of professional misconduct.4 However, the increasing complexity of legal
practice and the evolving needs of clients have led to debates on the adequacy of these
existing mechanisms in effectively addressing issues of professional negligence.

Recently, the Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K.
Gandhi,5 grappled with the question of whether proceedings claiming “deficiency in service”
against advocates can be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This decision
has significant implications for the legal profession, as it explores the boundaries between the
specialised regulatory framework of the Advocates Act and the broader consumer protection
laws.

The Court has observed6 that there are several instances that can be described as
“unfortunate” for both law as a profession and justice. In this regard, the Court has
emphasised the duty of the legal fraternity to better the quality of service rendered to the
litigant-public and the courts, as well as to enhance their image in the eyes of society.

1
Sambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry, AIR 2001 SC 2509.
2
Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 928.
3
Noratanman Courasia v. M. R. Murali, (2004) 5 SCC 689.
4
Advocates Act, 1961, §§ 35-44.
5
supra note 2.
6
Sanjiv Datta v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (1995) 3 SCC 619.

6|Page
Regrettably, the Court has noted that some members of the profession have adopted a
“perceptibly casual approach” to law’s practice. The Court has cautioned that such acts and
omissions not only amount to contempt of court but also do a “positive disservice” to the
litigants. Such conduct, the Court has observed, “augurs ill for the health of our judicial
system.”

This project delves into the broader issue of professional negligence by lawyers, critically
analysing whether the liability of legal practitioners would fall within the definition of the
services under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 7 in light of the recent
Supreme Court judgment in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi. 8 The discussion will
explore the unique nature of the legal profession, the regulatory framework governing the
conduct of advocates, and the ongoing debates surrounding the accountability and
disciplinary mechanisms applicable to the legal fraternity.

7
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, § 2(1)(o).
8
supra note 2.

7|Page
 UNDERSTANDING PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
The concept of professional negligence is a crucial aspect of the legal framework that governs
the conduct of professionals in various fields, including medicine, law, architecture, and
engineering. Professionals are expected to possess a certain level of knowledge, skill, and
expertise in their respective domains, and they are held to a higher standard of care when
providing services to their clients or patients.9 It follows that a professional should command
a corpus of knowledge of the profession they are practicing and should not lag behind other
intelligent members of their profession in knowledge. They should also be alert to the hazards
and risks involved in any professional task they undertake

The Supreme Court of India has interpreted the term “professional negligence” in the case of
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab.10 The court held that a professional may be held liable for
negligence if they were not possessed of the requisite skill that they professed to have, or if
they did not exercise the skill they possessed with reasonable competence in the given case.
The standard applied in judging whether a professional has been negligent or not is that of an
“ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession.” This standard
recognises that it is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of
expertise or skills in their respective fields.

The concept of “misconduct” is closely related to professional negligence. “Misconduct is a

wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated act.” In the context of
the legal profession, misconduct signifies any activity of an advocate that violates
professional ethics for their selfish ends. 11 Misconduct may include misfeasance (the
improper performance of a lawful act) as well as malfeasance (the commission of an unlawful
act).12 The Supreme Court has held that misconduct must be an improper or wrong behaviour,
unlawful behaviour, or a transgression of an established rule of action or code of conduct, and
not merely an error of judgment, carelessness, or negligence in the performance of duty.13

The Advocates Act, 1961, which regulates the conduct of legal practitioners in India,
empowers the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils to frame rules and standards of
professional misconduct.14 The Act also confers disciplinary powers on these bodies to

9
Ryland v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330.
10
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1.
11
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dahbolkar, (1975) 2 SCC 767.
12
supra note 3.
13
State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 607.
14
Advocates Act, 1961, §§ 49(1)(c), 49(1)(d).

8|Page
maintain discipline among advocates and address professional or other misconduct.11 The
scope of “misconduct” is not restricted by technical interpretations of rules of conduct, as the
Supreme Court has held that professional ethics cannot be contained in a Bar Council rule or
in traditional canons, but rather in new canons of conscience that command the members of
the legal profession to obey rules of morality and utility.15

In the case of Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dahbolkar, the Supreme Court criticised
the restrictive interpretation of the relevant rule by the Bar Council of India, which had
absolved advocates of charges of professional misconduct for positioning themselves at the
entrance of Magistrate’s courts and rushing towards potential litigants to snatch briefs and
undercut fees.16 The court held that the standard of conduct of advocates flows from the broad
canons of ethics and high standards of behaviour, and that misconduct should be understood
in a context-specific, dynamic sense that captures the role of the advocate in society at large.

In the matter of ‘P’ an Advocate, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench drew a crucial
distinction between “negligence” and “gross negligence” in the context of professional
misconduct.17 The court held that mere negligence or an error of judgment on the part of an
advocate would not, in itself, amount to professional misconduct. The court observed that
“error of judgment cannot be completely eliminated in all human affairs, and mere
negligence may not necessarily show that the Advocate who was guilty of it can be charged
with misconduct.” However, the court cautioned that if the negligence of the advocate is
“gross,” it may involve moral turpitude or delinquency, thereby warranting disciplinary
action.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in P.D. Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa
further elucidated the distinction between “improper legal advice” and “wrong legal
advice.”18 The court observed that there is a significant difference between the two, and that
the mere giving of improper legal advice, without any finding of moral turpitude or
delinquency, would not amount to professional misconduct. The court emphasised that “mere
negligence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner in
the exercise of his profession does not amount to professional misconduct.”

15
supra note 4.
16
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dahbolkar, (1975) 2 SCC 767.
17
In the matter of 'P' an Advocate, AIR 1963 SC 1313.
18
P.D. Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, AIR 1984 SC 110.

9|Page
In the case of Kathira Kunju T.A. v. Jacob Mathews, the Supreme Court reiterated the
principle that mere negligence on the part of an advocate would not constitute professional
misconduct.19 The court held that the act of the advocate, who had failed to return a
dishonoured cheque to his client, could not be termed as “gross negligence,” but at most,
“one of negligence.” The court observed that there was no clear analysis by the disciplinary
committee on the aspect of “gross negligence” by the advocate.

The Supreme Court’s decision in CBI v. K. Narayana Rao further reinforced the notion that
an advocate's criminal liability for an erroneous legal opinion should be limited. 20 The court
held that the liability of an advocate arises only when there is tangible evidence of the
lawyer’s active participation in a plan to defraud the client. Mere mistakes or negligence in
the opinion rendered by the advocate would not be sufficient to establish criminal culpability,
though it may lead to disciplinary action for professional misconduct.

These judgments highlight the Courts’ balanced approach in dealing with allegations of
professional negligence against advocates. While the legal profession demands the highest
standards of conduct and competence, the courts have recognised that occasional mistakes or
errors of judgment are inevitable in human affairs. The distinction drawn between
“negligence” and “gross negligence,” and the requirement of demonstrating moral turpitude
or delinquency, serves to protect the legitimate interests of both the clients and the legal
professionals. This approach strikes a delicate balance, ensuring that advocates are held
accountable for egregious lapses, while also preserving the confidence and independence of
the legal profession.

19
Kathira Kunju T.A. v. Jacob Mathews, AIR 2017 SC 1041.
20
CBI v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512.

10 | P a g e
 LIABILITY OF LEGAL PRACTITIONER IN INDIA
In India, the matter of legal practitioners’ fees and liability is governed by the Legal
Practitioners (Fees) Act, 1926.21 Under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, a legal practitioner
is defined as “an advocate, vakil or attorney of any High Court, a pleader, mukhtar or
revenue agent.”22 The preamble to the Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act, 1926 states that it is
“An Act to define in certain cases the rights of legal practitioners to sue for their fees and
their liability to be sued in respect of negligence in the discharge of their professional
duties.”

Sections 2 to 5 of the Act are particularly relevant. Section 2 defines a “legal practitioner”
and clarifies that a legal practitioner shall not be deemed to “act” if he only pleads, or to
“agree to act” if he agrees only to plead. Section 3 provides that a legal practitioner who acts
or agrees to act for any person may, by private agreement, settle the terms of his engagement
and the fees to be paid for his professional services. Section 4 entitles a legal practitioner to
institute and maintain legal proceedings for the recovery of any fee due to him under the
agreement, or a fee computed in accordance with the law in force regarding the computation
of costs to be awarded to a party in respect of the fee of his legal practitioner. Finally, Section
5 states that no legal practitioner who has acted or agreed to act shall, by reason only of being
a legal practitioner, be exempt from liability to be sued in respect of any loss or injury due to
any negligence in the conduct of his professional duties. The interpretation of these statutory
provisions is evident from the case law discussed below.

Case Law Developments

In the case of M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequira, 23 the Supreme Court of India held that a legal
practitioner cannot claim exemption from liability to be sued in respect of any loss or injury
suffered by the client due to any negligence in the conduct of his professional duties merely
by reason of his being a legal practitioner. The Court further stated that the question of
whether Section 2(b) of the Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act, 1926 will afford protection to a
legal practitioner from being sued for negligence by a client if he only pleads or agrees to
plead is a matter for judicial determination in an appropriate case if an occasion arises for it.
The Court, however, refrained from expressing any opinion on this matter, as the nature of
the controversy in the appeal did not pertain to these questions.

21
Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act, 1926 (India).
22
Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, § 3 (India).
23
M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequira, (1988) 1 SCC 557.

11 | P a g e
In another case, CBI v. K. Narayana Rao, 24 the Supreme Court observed that the mistakes on
the part of an advocate will not, by themselves, mean that he had conspired with other
accused to defraud a bank. The Court held that the liability against an opining advocate arises
only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the bank. In the absence
of tangible evidence to connect the lawyer with the other conspirators, the Court ruled that
the lawyer cannot be charged for the offence along with other conspirators. The Court,
however, clarified that if there is a link or evidence to connect the lawyer with the other
conspirators for causing loss to the institution, the prosecuting authorities are entitled to
proceed with the criminal prosecution.

The English Position

In England, a distinction was made between barristers and other professional men for a long
time. It was the general rule that a barrister could not be sued by a client for negligence or
breach of duty because a barrister's services were deemed to be gratuitous, and therefore he
could not sue or even make a contract for his fees with a client or with a solicitor who
represented the client. Correspondingly, a barrister could not be sued by a client for breach of
duty or negligence. However, this assumption suffered a setback when the House of Lords
enunciated a general principle in Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners. 25 The
principle was that if someone possessed of a special skill undertakes, quite irrespective of
contract, to apply that skill for the assistance of another person who relies on such skill, a
duty of care will arise.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals in Rondel v. W., 26 and the House of Lords in Rondel v.
Worsley,27 had to rest the immunity of a barrister from being sued for professional negligence
in the conduct of a cause on grounds of public policy. In Heywood v. Wellers, 28 the plaintiff
was held entitled to recover damages from the defendant firm of solicitors for the mental
distress which she had suffered as a result of the molestation suffered by the plaintiff
consequent on the solicitor's negligent failure to enforce the injunction obtained against one
Reginald Marrion.

In Midland Bank Trust Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Hett, Stubbs & Kemp, 29 a firm of solicitors was
sued for damages for their failure to register a formal agreement, as a consequence of which
24
supra note 20.
25
Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners, [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (U.K.).
26
Rondel v. W., [1966] 3 All E.R. 657 (U.K.).
27
Rondel v. Worsley, [1967] 3 All E.R. 993 (U.K.).
28
Heywood v. Wellers, [1976] 1 All E.R. 300 (U.K.).
29
Midland Bank Trust Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Hett, Stubbs & Kemp, [1979] Ch. 384 (U.K.).

12 | P a g e
the plaintiff could not enforce his option under the agreement to purchase the freehold
reversion of a farm at a stated price within a period of ten years. In Re Bell's Indenture Ben &
Anr. v. Hickley & ors.,30 a solicitor was held liable to replace the misappropriated money of
his client as a constructive trustee, as the money was paid into the firm's client account in the
name of express trustees, and the express trustees misappropriated the money with the
solicitor’s knowledge.

The statutory provisions in India and the case law developments in both India and England
demonstrate that legal practitioners cannot claim exemption from liability for negligence in
the conduct of their professional duties solely on the basis of their status as legal
practitioners. The courts have consistently held that legal practitioners owe a duty of care to
their clients and can be sued for any loss or injury suffered by the client due to their
negligence.

30
Re Bell’s Indenture Ben & Anr. v. Hickley & ors., [1980] 1 All E.R. 768 (U.K.).

13 | P a g e
 AMPLITUDE OF LIABILITY OF LEGAL PRACTITIONER UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT, 1986
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India recently examined the critical question of
whether proceedings alleging “deficiency in service” against advocates under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 maintainable.31 This case, stemming from a dispute between a client and
his lawyer, has far-reaching implications for the legal profession in India.

The case originated when Mr. D.K. Gandhi hired an advocate to file a complaint under the
Negotiable Instruments Act. During the proceedings, the accused agreed to pay ₹20,000 for a
dishonoured cheque and ₹5,000 for legal expenses. These amounts were paid to the advocate
via demand draft or pay order. However, the advocate allegedly refused to hand over the
cheques/demand drafts to Mr. Gandhi and demanded ₹5,000 in cash, which Mr. Gandhi
refused to pay. Although the advocate later returned the cheques/demand drafts, he
purportedly asked the accused to stop payment on the ₹5,000 cheque.

Aggrieved by this conduct, Mr. Gandhi filed a consumer complaint against the advocate
before the District Forum in New Delhi, seeking compensation and the cheque amount. The
forum rejected the advocate's objection that lawyers were not covered under the Act and ruled
in favour of Mr. Gandhi. On appeal, the State Commission reversed this decision, holding
that services provided by advocates do not fall within the definition of “service” under
Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(NCDRC) overturned the State Commission's judgment, ruling that advocates’ services do
fall within the Act’s definition of “service.” This decision was subsequently challenged before
the Supreme Court by various parties, including the Bar of Indian Lawyers, the Bar Council
of India, and the Delhi High Court Bar Association. Given the sensitivity of the issues
involved, the Supreme Court appointed an amicus-curiae to assist in deliberations.

The appellants argued that the legal profession is a noble calling, distinct from business or
trade. They contended that advocates exercise independent judgment in their clients’ interests
and that mere negligence or errors of judgment should not be considered professional
misconduct or deficiency of service. They also emphasised that the Bar Council of India and
State Bar Councils already possess the authority to address complaints against advocates. The
appellants further asserted that the Advocates Act, 1961, being a special law, should prevail

31
supra note 2.

14 | P a g e
over the Consumer Protection Act in cases of professional misconduct, which they argued
subsumes cases of negligence.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court considered several key questions. First, it examined
whether the legislature ever intended to include professions or services rendered by
professionals within the Act's scope. Citing the Act’s objectives and the precedent set in
Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, the Court concluded that advocates cannot be
treated as manufacturers, traders, businessmen, or service providers of products. The Court
ruled that the legislature never intended to bring professions or professionals within the Act’s
ambit. Second, the Court considered whether the legal profession is sui generis (unique in its
characteristics). Relying on precedents such as R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General,
Madras High Court,32 the Court affirmed the unique nature of the legal profession,
emphasizing its profound impact on the administration of justice. Third, the Court addressed
whether services provided by an advocate could be considered a service under a contract “of
personal service.” The Court observed that clients exercise considerable direct control over
how advocates render their services after signing a vakalatnama. Consequently, it opined that
advocates' services are obtained under a contract of “personal service” and are thus excluded
from the Act’s definition of “service.”

The Court also examined consumer laws in other jurisdictions, including Malaysia, Québec,
the United States, and European Union directives. This comparative analysis supported the
conclusion that lawyers, as regulated professionals, should not be stripped of their immunity
by inclusion under consumer laws. In its final ruling, the Supreme Court set aside the
NCDRC’s order and made several key determinations. It held that the legislature never
intended to include professions or services rendered by professionals under the Act. The
Court affirmed the sui generis nature of the legal profession and ruled that services provided
by an advocate constitute a service under a contract “of personal service,” falling outside the
Act's definition of service. Consequently, the Court concluded that complaints alleging
deficiency in service against advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection
Act. While this judgment represents a significant victory for litigators, its implications for
corporate lawyers operating outside the courtroom remain to be seen, as they may now fall
within the ambit of consumer laws.

32
R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General, Madras High Court, (2019) 16 SCC 407.

15 | P a g e
 WAY FORWARD AND CONCLUSION
The recent Supreme Court judgment in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi 33 marks a
significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding the liability of legal practitioners
in India. By ruling that complaints alleging deficiency in service against advocates are not
maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Court has reaffirmed the unique
status of the legal profession and its practitioners. This decision, while providing a measure
of protection for advocates, also raises important questions about the balance between
professional autonomy and accountability in the legal field.

The Court’s reasoning, which emphasises the sui generis nature of the legal profession and its
profound impact on the administration of justice, underscores the need for a nuanced
approach to regulating legal services. By distinguishing the work of advocates from that of
manufacturers, traders, or service providers, the judgment recognizes the complex and often
unpredictable nature of legal practice. This distinction is crucial, as it acknowledges that the
outcome of legal proceedings cannot be guaranteed and that advocates must exercise
independent judgment in their clients' best interests. However, this ruling should not be
interpreted as a blanket immunity for legal practitioners from all forms of accountability. The
existing regulatory framework, primarily governed by the Advocates Act, 1961, and overseen
by the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils, remains in place to address instances of
professional misconduct. It is imperative that these regulatory bodies continue to evolve and
strengthen their mechanisms for addressing client grievances and maintaining high standards
of professional conduct.

Moving forward, there is a need for a comprehensive review and potential reform of the
existing disciplinary processes within the legal profession. This could include streamlining
complaint procedures, enhancing transparency in disciplinary proceedings, and ensuring
timely resolution of cases. Additionally, the legal community should consider implementing
more robust continuing education programs and ethical training to proactively address issues
of professional negligence and misconduct.

The judgment’s implications for corporate lawyers and those practicing outside the courtroom
remain somewhat ambiguous. As the legal profession continues to diversify and evolve, it
may be necessary to develop more tailored regulatory approaches that account for the varying
nature of legal services provided in different contexts. This could involve creating specialised
33
supra note 2.

16 | P a g e
committees or tribunals within the Bar Councils to address sector-specific issues and
complaints. Furthermore, the legal profession should take this opportunity to engage in
introspection and self-regulation. Bar associations and legal professional bodies could
consider developing more comprehensive guidelines and best practices for different areas of
legal practice. These guidelines could serve as a reference point for both practitioners and
clients, helping to establish clear expectations and standards of service.

It is also crucial to explore alternative mechanisms for addressing client grievances that fall
short of professional misconduct but may still constitute unsatisfactory service. This could
involve the establishment of mediation or conciliation processes specifically designed to
handle disputes between lawyers and clients, potentially under the auspices of the Bar
Councils or independent bodies. The legal education system also has a role to play in shaping
the future of the profession. Law schools should place greater emphasis on professional
ethics, client management, and practical skills that can help reduce instances of negligence or
miscommunication. Incorporating real-world scenarios and case studies into the curriculum
can better prepare aspiring lawyers for the challenges they may face in practice.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, particularly with the advent of technology and
alternative legal service providers, it is essential that the regulatory framework remains
adaptive and responsive. The Bar Council of India and other stakeholders should actively
monitor developments in the legal services market and be prepared to update regulations and
guidelines as necessary to ensure that client interests are protected while maintaining the
integrity and independence of the legal profession.

Hence, by embracing a proactive approach to self-regulation, enhancing existing disciplinary

mechanisms, and fostering a culture of continuous improvement and ethical practice, the
Indian legal community can work towards maintaining public trust and confidence in the
profession while upholding its noble traditions and values.

17 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACTS AND STATUTES :-

1. Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act, 1926.

2. Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. Advocates Act, 1961.

BOOKS REFERRED :–

• RaoSanjeev, Indian Advocates Act, 1971.

• M.P. Jain, Indian Legal History (Chap. On Legal Profession).

• Krishna Murthy Iyer’s Book on Advocacy.

18 | P a g e